DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

We have some early details on Sony's release of the recent Daniel Craig movie

Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced Casino Royale, which stars Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench and Jeffrey Wright. The film will be available to own in separate widescreen and full screen editions from the 13th March. Each will retail at around $28.95. Audio is provided courtesy of English and French Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround tracks. Extras will include a 'Becoming Bond' documentary that takes an intimate look at how Daniel Craig stepped into the role of the 6th James Bond, a 'James Bond: For Real' featurette that looks at the action and stunts, a 'Bond Girls are Forever' featurette that takes a closer look at Bond's leading ladies, the Chris Cornell 'You Know My Name' music video and trailers. A Blu-ray release will also be available from the 13th. Artwork can be found below, along with a number of menus from the recently-released region three edition (hence the DTS and foreign subtitles).

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Matt Stilwell wrote: This guy's too model-ish to be bond. Bond is supposed to be rugged, not effeminate. You're kidding right? Craig is the most rugged Bond since Connery. Moore and Brosnam, now that's effete, lol!

This BOND was great. A very nice change of pace, seeing as the last few were getting cartoonish but at the same time they were taking themselves far too seriously as well.

Too bad they screwed up the bond ultimate editions by just randomly grouping the movies together. I wish they would have done them in order and then waited to release new box sets, or grouped by actor perhaps. (i suppose i do understand their reasoning tho... make as much money off of the dvd market right now... then release everything again for every new movie... also an extra bonus is new realses to bluray and HD formats) B*****DS!!!

In no way, shape, or form does this count as a Bond film. It doesn't even come close to Roger Moore or Tim Dalton, the c**ppiest of the Bonds. James Bond is not supposed to be blonde. This guy's too model-ish to be bond. Bond is supposed to be rugged, not effeminate.

[quote=Bradavon wrote] Why is Lighter African American when he's been White in every other Bond film that he's appeared in? Why did Connery not recognise him when he met Lighter in Dr. No if he'd met him years earlier in Casino Royale.

I love this movie. The menus look cool, but I'll know for sure come the 13th of March. I do have to say that I disagree with the quote on the back, and say Connery was better than Craig. But that's just me.

I really like this movie and may pick it up, but the small amount of bonus material is really unacceptable. I was hoping for an audio commentary by Martin Campbell, myself. And no deleted scenes? Sony is bound to have a better edition of this title available in six months' time...

And what's with those menus? I don't understand the black-and-white theme, when 90% of the movie is in color. They're nicely designed though -- the special features disc I suspect is the same for all regions. (Has anyone noticed that when Sony releases a 2-disc set, all the features on the 2nd disc are subtitled in Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Thai -- how come they don't have English subtitles?)

I like the menu system a lot, although I had hoped the menus from the ultimate editions might have made it over, as they seemed to have been modelled a little on Casino Royale and would have suited the film well. In all honesty, that was more of a hope than an expectation, and these new menus are jolly nice.

Australia's own EzyDVD is listing a '5-part behind-the-scenes making of' called 'newswrap'. Either that has since been dropped and is planned for a future double-dip... or the U.S. is getting screwed (and possibly the U.K. too?) while we get a superior DVD set.

Don Jariyasunant wrote: This pitiful excuse for a DVD is telling me that Sony put absolutely zero thought and planning into this DVD. It seems lazy of them to dig up what is essentially 4 EPK featurettes which were probably produced well before the movie was released and throw them onto this DVD. I don't get it why they didn't have the time to produce a nice making of documentary which detailed the casting of Craig, the script conception, shooting and post production. You could easily have an awesome 2 hour documentary right there. And don't tell me Martin Campbell was too busy to devote 2 1/2 hours to record a commentary? The studio paid him a c**p load of money to direct this movie, it should be part of his contract to do a commetary.

I don't consider commentaries to be as 'needed' as making-of featurettes, but many of them are really interesting...but Jariyasunant is right, we could've had an awesome documentary, like WB did with SR (even though that one was like a 4/5)

The best Bond film of the series! I hate James Bond but Craig just won me over with Casino Royale! He definitely made the character that much more interesting as well as believable! Also, by far, the best entertaining action movie of 2006! What a disappointment 2006 seemed to me for action movies! I'm definitely adding this to my DVD collection!

This completely sucks. A friend of mine has told me all of the specials aired on the UK, so nothing in this set is original. Martin Campbell did a great commentary for GoldenEye, and now b/c they have to be greedy we get jipped on the first go around.

We know there are a plethora of deleted scenes, as every commercial seemed to contain at least one scene not in the film. After a good DAD DVD, I was expecting alot more, especially after the success of the film.

I'm going to buy this b/c I'm a huge Bond fan and love the film but I'm not going to be happy come 2008 when Bond 22 is released and I have to buy the real DVD.

This pitiful excuse for a DVD is telling me that Sony put absolutely zero thought and planning into this DVD. It seems lazy of them to dig up what is essentially 4 EPK featurettes which were probably produced well before the movie was released and throw them onto this DVD. I don't get it why they didn't have the time to produce a nice making of documentary which detailed the casting of Craig, the script conception, shooting and post production. You could easily have an awesome 2 hour documentary right there. And don't tell me Martin Campbell was too busy to devote 2 1/2 hours to record a commentary? The studio paid him a c**p load of money to direct this movie, it should be part of his contract to do a commetary.

My God, this is by far the weakest Bond DVD as far as extras goes. You mean to tell me Sony/MGM couldn't get Martin Campbell or even Daniel Craig to spend 2 1/2 hours in a recording studio to do a commentary? Heck, I would have even liked a Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocolli commentary over nothing.

Shame on you MGM/Sony!!! Look at the awful extras, just four misserable lines...no audio commentary...shame on you to make people like us who will pay for quality wait for a double-dip...shame!!!

It was a must-buy, but now that I saw the artwork, I don't even think there was need for a 2 disc edition! I guess we'll have to wait a year or so for a 'GOOD' special edition...or wait 'til this one is $10 USD or about so.

Quote: Give me a commentary and a 90 minute behind the scenes documentry about the new direction this Bond film is taking. That will be on the Ultimate Edition (which hasn't been announced). It's well under £10 so I'm happy.

Great Great Movie, best of 2006. But the extra's on the DVD are poor poor. They aren't exclusive as they've been shown on Television before and they aren't all that good either. Give me a commentary and a 90 minute behind the scenes documentry about the new direction this Bond film is taking.

Chris Johnson wrote: I always hated the Bond movies, so count me out. I HATE all the Bond films as well, I can't sit through them...they are so boring to me. But this one is actually really good: theres enough character development to actually make the action scenes interesting. More like the Bourne movies (still better though) than previous James Bond ones.

The Artwork is oke, but I hate the red bar and the fact that 007 appears under the title on the spine instead of above it, as for it not matching up with the UE's is a shame but I would have to place it seperately anyway as my UE briefcase has no extra space for additional titles

stevesoprano wrote: I have been a Bond fan for a long while, I still have not seen this one, but I think they should have made an original film instead of a remake. In my opinion, I think Bond has ran his course in movies. I just purchased all four volumes on dvd and can't wait to watch them, just wondering why "Never Say Never Again" was included, horrible movie, great director though, Steve

This isn't a remake, if you've seen the '67 "Casino Royale", you'll relaise this as soon as you start the DVD. As for "NSNA", where was it included in your DVDs?

Sam Spade wrote: Wonder how long until the Special Edition or Ultimate Edition or Bond Edition?Calling it 2 Disk Widescreen Edition is just asking for a double dip.The only question is: when?

When 4 more movies come out to make up a new 5th box set or when they all come out on a High Def format

Best opening 10 minutes in an action movie, ever. I loved this film, Great way to re-energize the franchise. Plus the new Bond is HOT HOT HOT< loved him coming out of the ocean in them retro swim trunks, yeah baby yeah.

I have been a Bond fan for a long while, I still have not seen this one, but I think they should have made an original film instead of a remake. In my opinion, I think Bond has ran his course in movies. I just purchased all four volumes on dvd and can't wait to watch them, just wondering why "Never Say Never Again" was included, horrible movie, great director though, Steve

My favorite film of the year (mind you, not the best, but my favorite)! I've seen it three times and still can't get enough. I hated the casting of Daniel Craig but the man has sold me as definite competition to Connery. He is incredible! This ranks right up there with From Russia With Love and Goldfinger as one of the best Bond films ever. I can not wait to watch this in 5.1. Even the Cornell song rocked! Still can't believe it got a Golden Tomato for best reviewed of the year, but it has no doubt earned it. (My only nitpick preventing it from a 10- Slightly long running time, but still, this was amazing entertainment!) Oh, and that Bond girl is SMOKING HOT!

stanton heck wrote: Bradavon wrote: Because it's a reboot and not specifically connected.

Why is Lighter African American when he's been White in every other Bond film that he's appeared in? Why did Connery not recognise him when he met Lighter in Dr. No if he'd met him years earlier in Casino Royale.

Why is said Bond has only been in love once before (i.e - On her Majesty's Secret Service) when in fact he has now been in love twice. The list goes on.

They choice Dench as they couldn't imagine anyone else in the role. I agree she's excellent.

At the end of the day IMO it really doesn't matter. My biggest gripe (and it really is a gripe) is it should've been 15-20 minutes shorter, its bit too long.

Oh and I hope at last we'll see it uncut. It was definitely cut back in the UK (the torture scene). It's not known if it was uncut in the USA too.

I also hope we get DTS too!

p.s - No James Bond is not a codename, it's his name.

thedaz wrote: Thought the "Bond Girl" could've been better though. She looked like she was 16 years old and needed a good feed. You must have some really old looking 16 year olds in your area then ;-)

16??? She looked minimum of mid-20s. Personally I thought she suited the style very well. Too attractive and it wouldn't have worked. This is a re-start not a prequel! So the events your talking about have not happen!

The first line of his post is "It's a reboot"...

I like the artwork, may print out some customs to match my others, but this artwork is nice, so I may let well enough alone.

RalphFiennes wrote: Great film, I'll be picking this up. Did for Bond what Begins did for Batman.

I totally agree with this statement! This movie ignited my love for the bond series(produced by Broccoli) which I have watched every movie since seeing this one. But I do agree that the timeline is a little confusing as to where it takes place. Also I feel that it had the same great impact on the Bond Series as what Batman Begins did! I'm getting this DVD as soon as its available, I cant wait!!! :-D

Why is Lighter African American when he's been White in every other Bond film that he's appeared in? Why did Connery not recognise him when he met Lighter in Dr. No if he'd met him years earlier in Casino Royale.

Why is said Bond has only been in love once before (i.e - On her Majesty's Secret Service) when in fact he has now been in love twice. The list goes on.

This is a re-start not a prequel! So the events your talking about have not happen! They choice Dench as they couldn't imagine anyone else in the role. I agree she's excellent.

At the end of the day IMO it really doesn't matter. My biggest gripe (and it really is a gripe) is it should've been 15-20 minutes shorter, its bit too long.

Oh and I hope at last we'll see it uncut. It was definitely cut back in the UK (the torture scene). It's not known if it was uncut in the USA too.

I also hope we get DTS too!

p.s - No James Bond is not a codename, it's his name.

thedaz wrote: Thought the "Bond Girl" could've been better though. She looked like she was 16 years old and needed a good feed. You must have some really old looking 16 year olds in your area then ;-)

16??? She looked minimum of mid-20s. Personally I thought she suited the style very well. Too attractive and it wouldn't have worked.

Bradavon wrote: RalphFiennes wrote: The others were primarily MGM labels, with small Sony tags tucked away on the back Spot the MGM logo on the side. Sony/MGM same thing when it comes to Bond.

True, but the others were MGMs which Sony now happen to have the rights too. This is the first one which Sony is making a big deal about owning, hence the Sony logo at the start of the film, and the larger Sony logo on the spine, unlike the recent Ultimate Editions which to the casual eye were simply MGM releases. Like it or not, Sony are treating this film separately and more as their own for at least the time being.

The link above is the original version of the poster used for the cover. I prefer the darker tones inside the silhouette. It kinda fits with the story. Also, I'm not "feelin'" the red bar on the top. they should go for a lighter color.

"A Death in Venice featurette" - Way to go Sony let everyone know how it ends :-|

Blue-Kal-El wrote: but has the feel of a 60s Bond movie You say that as if it's a bad thing, it's a back to basics Bond. I don't see how it does btw though.

Blue-Kal-El wrote: ...the extras will be the factor to make it a must-buy or a wait-til-it's-cheap-buy. Read the write up ;-)

Fabricio De Zuasnabar wrote: is it gonna be two discs??? no single disc??? O_o [so impressed] You can't have looked very hard at that cover art, your question is answered there, and in the write up too ;-)

Nice cover art but it so should've had the same Ultimate Edition cover art, wasted opportunity.

I'll be getting this for sure, no contest. Easily the best blockbuster film of 2006 (2006 for blockbusters wasn't a good year, only one MI3 turkey but most had problems) and a rip-roaring ride at that.

RalphFiennes wrote: The others were primarily MGM labels, with small Sony tags tucked away on the back Spot the MGM logo on the side. Sony/MGM same thing when it comes to Bond.

Nic Mall wrote: Fingers crossed this comes with a reversable cover like Die Another Day did.

That was so you could finish your 007 logo that the spines made up. The spines of the new ultimate editions don't really do anything, and this is labelled more as a Sony release, so consistency isn't something that appears to be important. The others were primarily MGM labels, with small Sony tags tucked away on the back. There does appear to be clear division here, but I daresay there'll be some sort of consistent repackaging for 2008 when we get to see Daniel Craig give the nasties another smacking.

I would bet my left testicle that this isn't getting the UE treatment. And I'm sick of people saying its "not part of the same franchise". It is. Just because its a "reboot" doesnt meant its not part of the franchise. Same team behind the camera, same studio releasing it. Its the 21st Bond movie, period.

Its for this precise reason that I know we won't get an UE release. Remember the rumours the attache case would have room for Casino Royale...? Needless to say it doesnt.

MarvDwight wrote: It's a very good film, otherwise, with far superior writing than most of the others, and Craig's a great Bond. I'm just trying to block out the actor's suggestion that Bond have a homosexual scene in the next film. Brokeback Bond?!? What????

That was that unholy b * * ch who ran the Craig hate website spreading that slander.

Here's to hoping for a great cover. Maybe on that can match the UE covers (except the text HAS to remain silver).

Bloody brilliant film, Craig is possibly the first actor to play Ian Fleming's Bond (no bad one liners and puns in the original novels and a depth of soul the films have always lacked)and this film actually stayed fairly true to the novel (with modernization and added action to be sure, the novel is more of a straight espionage thriller) also it showed violence in a much different light than the previous bond films have done. Shot with a great deal of style by Martin Campbell (without a doubt the best film he has directed). As a HUGE bond fan, I was utterly delighted with this adaptation and loved the return to the source material. With very few exceptions the film series has never gotten the tone of Fleming's work until now. Can't wait for this one. Daniel Craig is James Bond.

The best action film of the year, for me. I wasn't too sure about the back to basic's premise until I saw the dynamite opening (it's, argueably, the best opening to any Bond film). Craig is great as a novice 007 but I still have reservations about him. Still awesome film overall. A must buy on DVD in any format.

RalphFiennes wrote: Great film, I'll be picking this up. Did for Bond what Begins did for Batman.

Killed it? Batman Begins sucked and don't ever compare that rubbish to this. I'll definately be picking this up - but I fail to see why a British movie is released in the US 2 weeks before it's UK release (March 26th)??? Wtf

Iam a litle bit disapointed that Fox don´t releasd it and don´t worry,if Fox release it insteed of Sony,there only release a 2 disc edition like Die Another Day. Fox know that releasing a 1 disc edition for a Bond movie is stupid,because there know that people always buy the 2 disc only.

I hope there confirmd fast that it get Dts and another 11 part making of feature from 40 minutes.

Not 100% confirmd,but it look like that one of those going to be the Dutch cover.

The Japanese version might well have DTS, but you gotta wait longer for it

Just to clarify something. I'm sick of people missing this SO obvious point, so let me explain. People STILL think the UK version is uncut. Its not.

- The BBFC said the film was too violent - The filmmakers went away and cut it BASED ON THE BBFC'S NOTES - The BBFC passed this cut version without any more cuts

The UK version is therefore cut.

dvader234 wrote: I hope the artwork doesn't match the ultimate editions because

1) Casino Royale is a reboot and doesn't fit with the original films in terms of continuity and

2)The original movies are in slim cases and Casino Royale will no doubt be in a standard-size case

Its a Bond film thats a Bond film thats a Bond film. It fits in just fine. Secondly, only the cheap-ass R1 discs (knocked together and rushed out for the US market) are in those awful slimlines cases. The R2 DVDs, for one, are in slipcases inside Amaray cases.

Not bad, but the Becoming Bond and For real documentaries have been played ad nausium on UK TV. The Bond Girls Are Forever is from a while back and has also been around the block a bit.

It would be nice if this release matching the U.E. sets by having a DTS soundtrack. We'll see...

For the record, we thought that there was nothing wrong with the extended poker scenes, it's just a pity that they felt they had to change the game from baccarat (as it was in the Fleming novel) to Texas Hold 'Em poker - the whole point as to why Bond was given the assignment in the book was because he was the only operative in MI6 who actually knew how to play the relatively obscure game of baccarat - every man and his dog knows how to play Texas Hold 'Em poker...

It was also odd to see an entirely new cast playing opposite one hangover from previous movies - Judi Dench. It would have been good to see the part recast, so they were starting entirely from scratch. We have always said that Edward Woodward would be a great M.

Ok, I'm on the bandwagon now. I was one of the people b***hing about this movie for a while. Well, I finally saw it the other night and was blown away. Craig was a fantastic Bond. The direction was top notch and the action was amazing. It ran a little long and some of the continunity plot holes were annoying. But overall it was still the best Bond I've seen in ages. I just hope for the next one they start to bring back a little more of what makes Bond...well Bond. I'll be getting this DVD the day it comes out.

according to the BBFC: This film was originally seen by the BBFC in an unfinished version, for advice as to the film's suitability at '12A'. The BBFC advised the company that the torture scene placed too much emphasis on both the infliction of pain and the sadism of the villain for the requested '12A' category. When the completed version of the film was submitted for classification, reductions to the torture sequence had been made, including the removal of lingering shots of the rope, close shots of Bond's facial reaction and the substitution of a more distant shot of the beating compared to the original version. This re-edited version of the scene was considered acceptable at '12A', where the Guidelines permit violence provided there is no dwelling on detail or emphasis on injuries.

but was passed with no cuts made, hope they release an extended version then

Can't wait to pick this up - this was not only one of my favorite films this year, but my favorite Bond movie ever. I've never cared for 007 before, I've always found the series silly and trite and laborious, but now they've hooked me! Can't wait for the next one!

My biggest complaint was that the poker scenes weren't longer and more involved - they felt heavily cut and I'd love to see an extended version with those scenes put back in

At first I didn't like it as much as I wanted to,but I still thought it was a great movie.Than I saw some past Bonds that I havn't seen in awhile.Now I love it!Comparing Die Another Day to Casino Royale is like comparing a Steven Seagal movie to Seven Samurai."The names Bond,James....Bond."

Meatwad wrote: Great film. Craig is the best Bond since Roger Moore, in my opinion. My only beef with the film was that it was rather long, we didn't need all those scenes of playing poker. They were needed. It was a large plot point of the film.

Why is Lighter African American when he's been White in every other Bond film that he's appeared in? Why did Connery not recognise him when he met Lighter in Dr. No if he'd met him years earlier in Casino Royale. Lighter was african american in Never Say Never Again. Bernie Casey.

I really want to see this. I'm normally not a big Bond fan but I was very intrigued by the casting choice of Daniel Craig. I'm a big fan of his and I like that he's a different look and style for Bond.

A.Released a 1 Disc and 2 Disc B.Released a 1 disc,and months later release a 2-disc or they could have got it right,but A & B seem to be the norm. X-Men:The Last Stand is a prime example. Fox only pull that trick in the States/Canada. Everywhere gets the 2 Disc release from the get go.

FInally saw it this last weekend, and you know what? It may be my number 3 Bond film. I've never been a very big fan, but have seen all the films over the years. Thunderball and From Russia with Love are the only two I've enjoyed more.

I thought the Poker scenes were very entertaining. The problematic part was after the poker ended, after the toture scene. The movie continues for like thirty minutes, and yet the plot we've been following appears to have concluded. We're all expecting credits, and yet it keeps going. It takes maybe ten minutes of this before we're given even a clue as to why we're still watching, what's left in the story. That's the problem, and I'm not sure it's a runtime issue. If I knew why I was in the theater for that ten minutes between the villain's defeat and the plot twist that carries the rest of the film I probably wouldn't have objected.

It's a very good film, otherwise, with far superior writing than most of the others, and Craig's a great Bond. I'm just trying to block out the actor's suggestion that Bond have a homosexual scene in the next film. Brokeback Bond?!? What????

Meatwad wrote: My only beef with the film was that it was rather long, we didn't need all those scenes of playing poker.

Yeah, and all those scenes in the Casino could have done to have been cut out as well. Boring. No wait a minute. That was what I liked the most about this film. The fact that for about 25-30 minutes it slowed down for some character moments and some suspense rather than the same old shoot, things explode every few minutes, car chase bowl ox that typified the previous Bond's and actioner's in general.

Great film. Craig is the best Bond since Roger Moore, in my opinion. My only beef with the film was that it was rather long, we didn't need all those scenes of playing poker. Will get this soon enough, which should be in one edition, no additional seperate 'special' edition.

Just confirmed the addition of the Chris Cornell "You Know My Name" music video. As for DTS - I'd think it unlikely as it's a Sony release. They rarely include DTS tracks these days. If it was Fox/MGM you'd have been in with a good chance.

I will definatly be picking this up. Loved it. With all the others being (once again) released in individual releases, and since they all will have close matching artwork (similar theme, at least), is there a chance this one will match.

Can't wait to get this. Probably the best Bond since Connery. Hopefully there are more details coming, like a DTS track and such. Surprised though that Sony is releasing it, I thought Fox had the DVD rights. Kinda sucks that it's not an Ultimate Edition.

I really, really wanted to see this, but I never got the opportunity. I'll definitely rent it or consider a blind-buy. The movie is still in theaters... and I thought Sony was going to release it on the last week of March and not the second. Oh well.

Why is Lighter African American when he's been White in every other Bond film that he's appeared in? Why did Connery not recognise him when he met Lighter in Dr. No if he'd met him years earlier in Casino Royale.

Why is said Bond has only been in love once before (i.e - On her Majesty's Secret Service) when in fact he has now been in love twice. The list goes on.

They choice Dench as they couldn't imagine anyone else in the role. I agree she's excellent.

At the end of the day IMO it really doesn't matter. My biggest gripe (and it really is a gripe) is it should've been 15-20 minutes shorter, its bit too long.

Oh and I hope at last we'll see it uncut. It was definitely cut back in the UK (the torture scene). It's not known if it was uncut in the USA too.

I also hope we get DTS too!

p.s - No James Bond is not a codename, it's his name.

thedaz wrote: Thought the "Bond Girl" could've been better though. She looked like she was 16 years old and needed a good feed. You must have some really old looking 16 year olds in your area then ;-)

16??? She looked minimum of mid-20s. Personally I thought she suited the style very well. Too attractive and it wouldn't have worked.

My only issue with the movie is continuity.... If this is back to the first adventure of Bond, why is Judy Dench M when it would have been better to chose a different actor to reinforce the fact... If it is a new spy taking on the codename James Bond, it's not very clear either.